-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathChristensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm
5167 lines (4480 loc) · 285 KB
/
Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<html>
<head>
<title>Thesis - Gospel Data</title>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered)">
<meta name="author" content="Daniel Christensen">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<!--Local Stylesheet-->
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="css/mystyle.css">
<!--External Stylesheets-->
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://stackpath.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/4.2.1/css/bootstrap.min.css" integrity="sha384-GJzZqFGwb1QTTN6wy59ffF1BuGJpLSa9DkKMp0DgiMDm4iYMj70gZWKYbI706tWS" crossorigin="anonymous">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://use.fontawesome.com/releases/v5.7.2/css/all.css" integrity="sha384-fnmOCqbTlWIlj8LyTjo7mOUStjsKC4pOpQbqyi7RrhN7udi9RwhKkMHpvLbHG9Sr" crossorigin="anonymous">
</head>
<body>
<!--Navbar-->
<div class="container">
<nav class="navbar fixed-top navbar-expand-lg navbar-dark bg-dark">
<a class="navbar-brand" href="index.html">
<img src="images/book-of-kells-gospels.jpg" class="align-top" style="width: 30px; width: 30px;">
</a>
<button class="navbar-toggler" type="button" data-toggle="collapse" data-target="#navbarNav">
<span class="navbar-toggler-icon"></span>
</button>
<div class="collapse navbar-collapse" id="navbarNav">
<ul class="navbar-nav">
<li class="nav-item active">
<a class="nav-link" href="index.html">Home</a>
</li>
<li class="nav-item">
<a class="nav-link" href="synopses.html">Synopses</a>
</li>
<li class="nav-item">
<a class="nav-link" href="about.html">About</a>
</li>
<li class="nav-item">
<a class="nav-link" href="contact.html">Contact</a>
</li>
</ul>
<!--Search Bar
<form class="form-inline my-2 my-lg-0">
<input class="form-control mr-sm-2" type="search" placeholder="Search" aria-label="Search">
<button class="btn btn-outline-success my-2 my-sm-0" type="submit">Search</button>
</form>-->
</div>
</nav>
</div>
<!--Title Banner-->
<div class="jumbotron jumbotron-fluid text-center">
<div class="container title-bkg">
<p class="title">Gospel Data</p>
<p class="subtitle d-none d-md-block">The Utility of Empirical Analyses of the Synoptic Gospels seen through an Exegesis of the Healing of the Paralytic</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="container-fluid top-border" id="abstract"></div>
<!--Buttons-->
<div class="container">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="resources/Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.pdf" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
<i class="far fa-file-pdf"></i> Read as a PDF</a>
</div>
<div class="col">
<a href="resources/Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.docx"
class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button" target="_blank">
<i class="far fa-file-word"></i> Read as a Word Doc</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="container-fluid">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-2 d-none d-md-block">
</div>
<div class="col">
<p>By: Daniel K. Christensen | The University of Chicago | Master of Arts Program in the Social Sciences | June 2019</p>
<p>Contact: <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></p>
<p>Faculty Reader: Jeff Jay</p>
<p>Preceptor: John Cropper</p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u>Abstract</u></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b> </b>The use of statistics and the empirical
analysis of data in the Synoptic Gospels has largely revolved around positing a
solution to the Synoptic Problem. As a result, synoptic scholars have often dismissed
the use of data interpretation in the study of the gospels as being overly
committed to a positivistic reading for the texts’ literary origins. In this
paper I argue that empirical data and statistical analyses should not be
disregarded from synoptic studies nor need they be committed to wholistic
explanations of particular source theories. Rather, statistical tools can be
used by New Testament scholars to aid in the interpretation of texts, and thus
should be considered part of the repository of exegetical tools alongside more
traditional avenues of interpretation such as textual, source, and redaction criticism.
I demonstrate that a contingency table can be used to postulate an association
between two gospel texts, which can then guide exegetical interpretation, and
is also a useful source of information for designing a digital visualization of
the gospel texts. In particular, I find that a contingency table posits a
positive association between Matthew and Luke based on their common redaction
of Mark in the pericope of the Healing of the Paralytic (Mt 9:1–8; Mk 2:1–12;
Lk 5:17–26). Based on this contingency table and a digital visualization of the
texts, I argue that Matthew’s and Luke’s common redaction of Mark in this
pericope is in keeping with their larger programmatic goals set up in their
introductory material to their gospel accounts (Mt 1:21–23; Lk 4:18–21), which designate
Jesus as God’s Messiah who forgives sins, releases captives, and dwells with
human beings as Emmanuel.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b>Key Words: </b>Healing of the Paralytic, the Synoptic
Problem, Statistics, Digital Humanities, Gospel Interpretation<b><u><br
clear=all style='page-break-before:always'>
</u></b></p>
</div>
<div class="col-2 d-none d-md-block">
<h3 align="center">
Jump to Section:
</h3>
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#abstract" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
Abstract</a>
</div>
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#introduction" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
Introduction</a>
</div>
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#scholarship" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
Synoptic Scholarship and the Empirical Approach</a>
</div>
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#contingency" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
An Empirical Analysis Approach: Contingency Tables</a>
</div>
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#exegesis" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
An Empirical Exegesis: The Healing of the Paralytic</a>
</div>
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#conclusion" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
Conclusion</a>
</div>
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#appendix" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
Appendix</a>
</div>
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#bibliography" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
Bibliography</a>
</div>
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#notes" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
Notes</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="container-fluid">
<div class=WordSection2>
<p class=MsoNormal id="introduction"> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal > </p>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-2 d-none d-md-block">
</div>
<div class="col">
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u>Introduction</u></b><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"
title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>1</sup></span></span></span></a></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b> </b>Readers of the New Testament, both
ancient and modern, have long puzzled over the literary relationship between
the first three gospels accounts, the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, respectively.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>2</sup></span></span></span></a>
Traditionally, the Synoptic Problem,<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>3</sup></span></span></span></a>
as it is often called, has been approached through established avenues of
Biblical exegesis.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>4</sup></span></span></span></a>
Methods like textual criticism<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>5</sup></span></span></span></a>
as well as source and redaction criticism<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6"
title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>6</sup></span></span></span></a>
have yielded insight into the Synoptic Gospels’ history of composition, which
has coalesced into a number of theories offering explanations for the texts’
origins. Modern scholarship has divided itself into several camps that claim to
have a superior explanation of the Synoptic Gospels’ literary relationship and
historical origins. While the number of these camps seems to proliferate with
increasingly complicated theories, four camps serve as pillars for synoptic
studies,<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>7</sup></span></span></span></a>
these are: The Two-Source Theory,<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>8</sup></span></span></span></a>
the Farrer Theory,<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>9</sup></span></span></span></a>
the Augustinian Hypothesis,<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>10</sup></span></span></span></a>
and the Griesbach Hypothesis.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>11</sup></span></span></span></a>
A large portion of scholarly debate in synoptic studies centers on the merits
of the Two-Source Theory, which supposes Markan priority and a hypothetical
document “Q” to account for Matthean and Lukan independence,<a href="#_ftn12"
name="_ftnref12" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>12</sup></span></span></span></a> and the
Farrer Theory, which supposes Markan priority without “Q” on the basis that
Matthew and Luke knew each other.<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>13</sup></span></span></span></a>
The Q non-Q debate has stimulated the use of other methods, such as narrative
criticism<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>14</sup></span></span></span></a>
and rhetorical criticism,<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>15</sup></span></span></span></a>
to examine the nuanced compositional arguments made by the gospel authors.<a
href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>16</sup></span></span></span></a> In addition
to the various forms of analysis just mentioned there have also been attempts
to employ statistical models and other quantitative analyses to determine
Matthean and Lukan independence or dependence.<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17"
title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>17</sup></span></span></span></a>
</p>
<p class=MsoNormal> However, New Testament scholars have been
ambivalent as to how empirical data and statistical analyses of the Synoptic
Gospels are meant to function within synoptic studies.<a href="#_ftn18"
name="_ftnref18" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>18</sup></span></span></span></a> There is no clear
consensus on how data can be used to study the gospel texts and what empirical
data can say about them. On the one hand, many New Testament scholars are
hesitant to use quantitative data and empirical analyses within synoptic
studies. Such scholars are often skeptical of the ability for a quantitative
method to aid the qualitative methods of traditional exegesis.<a href="#_ftn19"
name="_ftnref19" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>19</sup></span></span></span></a> On the other
hand, some synoptic scholars have been overly positivistic about what data and
statistics can do when studying the gospel texts. Such scholars sometimes see
quantitative approaches as being able to provide definitive solutions to the
Synoptic Problem while others see it as a means to supplement the veracity of gospel
source theories already in existence.<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>20</sup></span></span></span></a></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> However, these two extremes are misplaced. It is
my intention to show that empirical data collected from the Synoptic Gospels and
the responsible analysis of this data can aid exegetes in examining the texts and
open up new avenues of interpretation. I argue that empirical analysis of the
synoptic texts can be used on a micro-scale, that is, empirical data can aid in
the direct interpretation of individual pericopae. In this regard I hope to
move the utility of data from the Gospels beyond the confines of its current position
in synoptic studies, viz., its application to the Synoptic Problem. To do this
I highlight two functions data has regarding the interpretation of texts. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>(1) Data collected from empirical
analysis of the Synoptic Gospels can be used to visualize the texts. This is a
point that is often overlooked by scholars who both do and do not employ
statistics in their works. While some studies, such as those of Morgenthaler
and Abakuks, visually represent levels of agreement among the texts they do so in
order to display overall trends throughout entire gospels.<a href="#_ftn21"
name="_ftnref21" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>21</sup></span></span></span></a> However, in
order to benefit the exegesis of individual pericopae the most the data needs
to be displayed in a way that highlights the details of the texts themselves,
not just overall trends. Here data and the digital humanities come into
conversation with one another. A digital representation of the Synoptic Gospels
amalgamates a textual interface of the Gospels with the quantified data behind
each point of the text. In other words, a digital synopsis allows scholars to
read the texts in the conventional sense, that is word by word, while at the
same time being cognizant of broader trends behind the texts regarding
quantifiable data.<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>22</sup></span></span></span></a>
I thus argue that collecting and analyzing data from the Synoptic Gospels need
not be confined to proposing a solution to the Synoptic Problem but is in fact a
step in the process of operationalizing exegesis through the digital
humanities.<a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>23</sup></span></span></span></a></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'> (2) Data can be used to aid the
interpretation of texts. Here I argue for an interpretation of a pericope based
on a feature of the text uncovered by my empirical analysis and digital
synopsis. Specifically, I argue that Matthew and Luke preserve a saying
attributed to Jesus found in their common source Mark about the authority of
the Son of Man to forgive sins in the Healing of the Paralytic and both alter
slightly the grammatical presentation of forgiveness elsewhere in the pericope as
a means to fulfill the expectations of Jesus’ messianic identify as set up in
each of their respective introductions. One the one hand, Matthew’s emphasis
rests on Jesus’ present forgiveness among human beings as a fulfillment of his messianic
title, Emmanuel; Luke, on the other hand, situates forgiveness as a past promise
that is subsequently fulfilled in the presence of Jesus’ ministry of
forgiveness and release.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal id="scholarship"> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal > </p>
</div>
<div class="col-2 d-none d-md-block">
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#abstract" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
<i class="fas fa-chevron-up"></i></a>
</div>
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#scholarship" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
<i class="fas fa-chevron-down"></i></a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-2 d-none d-md-block">
</div>
<div class="col">
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u>Synoptic Scholarship and the Empirical Approach</u></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>Data as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem</i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>In order to support either the
Two-Source Theory or the Farrer Theory some scholars have turned to modeling
the Synoptic Gospels using statistics.<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24"
title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>24</sup></span></span></span></a>
While these scholars have taken many differing approaches in their works there
remains one commonality between them namely, they all address a solution to the
Synoptic Problem as a whole. Most often, empirical data from the Gospels is
used to posit a literary relationship, or lack thereof, between two or more
synoptic texts. In this way the data is used to provide a wholistic solution to
the Synoptic Problem. In doing so these studies have taken an overarching
approach that marginalizes the qualitative assessment of Biblical exegesis in
favor of a positivistic commitment to data. The goals, as stated by some of
these studies, is indicative of this commitment. For example, A. M. Honoré uses
a statistical approach to study the validity of Markan priority. In his
assessment, the basis for postulating Markan priority needs a better foundation
that is less susceptible to the whims of scholarly intuition. He writes: </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'>Surely the modern
critical opinion should either be put on a firm statistical foundation or
abandoned? It was with this in mind that I undertook the present study. I hope
that, quite apart from the results, the methods may be of some interest. Since
they are statistical, they can at best lead to results which can claim a high
degree of probability. On the other hand they are or should be more firmly
based than mere intuition.<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>25</sup></span></span></span></a></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>While this statement should not be taken to mean that Honoré
believes statistics are superior to the work of Biblical scholars, he does see
his approach as being able to provide a more reliable assessment of the
relationship between the synoptics when it comes to Markan priority. Honoré
ends his study with definitive statements on the validity of Markan priority, Matthew’s
and Luke’s use of Mark as a source, and Matthean and Lukan independence of one
another through the existence of other sources, though he does not postulate the
exact features of these sources.<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>26</sup></span></span></span></a>
In this regard, Honoré focuses on how the synoptic texts relate with one
another and gears his conversation towards a solution to the Synoptic Problem
premised on a positivistic commitment to empirical data. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> The preoccupation with a solution to the
Synoptic Problem is present in other scholarly works that seek to quantify the
synoptics. Some of the more extensive collections of statistical data on the
synoptic texts are found in the works of Robert Morgenthaler, and Joseph Tyson
and Thomas Longstaff.<span class=MsoFootnoteReference> <a href="#_ftn27"
name="_ftnref27" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>27</sup></span></span></a></span>
The goal of Tyson and Longstaff is to create a tool that can benefit scholars
in arguing for or against various solutions to the Synoptic Problem. While they
do not align themselves with a particular source theory, they remain committed
to examining overarching solutions to the Synoptic Problem through the use of
empirical analysis. They write in their preface:</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'>The purpose of the <i>Synoptic
Abstract</i> is to present an analysis of the verbal agreements among the
Synoptic Gospels and to do so without a presupposition about the correct
solution to the Synoptic problem. We have operated under the conviction that
scholars now need a neutral tool which can be used in the comparison of one
gospel with another, a tool which treats verbal agreements as important phenomena
which can be studied without dependence on a solution to the source problem.<a
href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>28</sup></span></span></span></a></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Here, “dependence” to a solution for the sources means a
presupposition about the validity of a source theory for the synoptics. Tyson
and Longstaff thus see their work as a means to buttress solutions to the
Synoptic Problem and not necessarily as a means to provide insight to the
interpretation of the texts. Likewise, Morgenthaler positions his statistical
study of the synoptic texts in relation to solving the Synoptic Problem. After
a survey of scholarly literature on the use of synopses, Morgenthaler states
two observations about the nature of synopses that characterize his approach:
(1) “The Synoptic Problem is based on quantitative facts,” and (2) “These
quantitative facts can be graphically represented.”<a href="#_ftn29"
name="_ftnref29" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>29</sup></span></span></span></a> He then goes
on to state that these two observations dictate how any solution to the
Synoptic Problem is to be conceived, writing, “As a result, a solution to the
Synoptic Problem will only be possible on the basis of a description and
recording of the quantitative facts and a clear – synoptic – representation of
the relevant results.”<a href="#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>30</sup></span></span></span></a>
In this sense, Morgenthaler positions his work as a means to demonstrate a
solution to the Synoptic Problem itself and not to interpret the texts
individually. However, he does point toward one useful feature of quantitative
approaches when it comes to synoptic studies namely, the ability to visualize
the texts in various ways.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>Other statistical studies of the Synoptic
Gospels, while abandoning the supposition that statistics alone can offer an
impartial solution to the Synoptic Problem, have maintained a commitment to
using empirical data to study to overall relationship between the gospel texts.
Andris Abakuks, a professional statistician interested in the Synoptic Problem,
has examined the usefulness and limitations of statistical analysis regarding
the Synoptic Gospels in great detail.<a href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" title=""><sup><sup><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>31</sup></span></sup></sup></a>
Abakuks uses a statistical model to look for places in entire synoptic texts
where there is a possible association between Matthew and Luke. Yet unlike
other statistical studies, Abakuks moves from a macroscopic analysis of the
texts to an examination of those individual pericopes which his statistical
method identified as important to Matthean and Lukan dependence of one another.
Thus, in light of his broader statistical model, Abakuks begins to engage in
more direct exegesis of certain passages in order to see how the conclusions
put forward by, “the statistical models, with their simplifying assumptions,
turn out to be when faced with the complexities of the texts themselves.”<a
href="#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>32</sup></span></sup></sup></a>
Abakuks is thus forthcoming about what statistics and empirical analysis can
achieve in synoptic studies, viz., they cannot be a definitive solution to the Synoptic
Problem but can point to certain patterns that may aid the scholarly study of
the texts. Abakuks’s approach thus acknowledges the need to pair the
quantitative and qualitative methods of synoptic study in such a way as to
allow them to complement one another and thereby leverage new insight from the
texts. In this regard, Abakuks’s work is an effort to use statistics in a way
that moves beyond offering a solution to the Synoptic Problem. However,
Abakuks’s approach still falls short in this regard because his analysis of the
individual pericopae is always geared toward finding a literary relationship
between the texts. His conclusions about the individual pericopes he examines
hope to provide insight into a possible literary relationship between the
synoptics, emphasizing the implications of the analysis for the Two-Source
Theory and Farrer Hypothesis.<a href="#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>33</sup></span></span></span></a>
Thus, Abakuks’s approach moves towards a meaningful engagement between
quantitative and qualitative modes of analysis, but ultimately maintains the
connection between a wholistic understanding of the Synoptic Problem and
empirical analysis of the synoptic texts. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>In sum, empirical analysis in
synoptic studies has largely been relegated to studying the Synoptic Problem
and, in particular, to interacting with source theory solutions to the Synoptic
Problem.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>Skepticism Towards Data in Synoptic Studies</i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>When New Testament Scholars do use
quantitative methods to analyze the Synoptic Gospels they are often met with criticism.
One of the more major criticisms, which represents a major challenge to both
quantitative and qualitative methods alike, has do with the ways textual
agreements are counted and tabulated within such studies.<a href="#_ftn34"
name="_ftnref34" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>34</sup></span></span></span></a> There are
several types of textual agreements within synoptic studies, usually having to
do with agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark: the so-called “minor-agreements.”<a
href="#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>35</sup></span></span></span></a> Frans Neirynck’s
work on the minor-agreements demonstrates the complex interpretive issues of
defining an agreement in the synoptics and the level of variability that exists
in how scholars come to identify a feature of the texts as an agreement, a
level of variability that has only increased since his work was published in
1974.<span class=MsoFootnoteReference> <a href="#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36"
title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>36</sup></span></span></a></span>
Thus, another goal for scholars, such as Tyson and Longstaff, is to supply a
catalog of textual agreements that displays them in a neutral setting without
preference for one source theory over another.<a href="#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37"
title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>37</sup></span></span></span></a>
But in any case, it can be said that synoptic scholars seldom agree on
agreements. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>Depending on the approach of a
particular statistical study and how agreements between the texts are measured
some scholars support the Two-Source Theory,<a href="#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38"
title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>38</sup></span></span></span></a>
some support the Farrer Hypothesis,<a href="#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>39</sup></span></span></span></a>
some support a mixture of approaches.<a href="#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>40</sup></span></span></span></a>
This has led to a scholarly critique against the overall use of statistical
methods and empirical data when addressing the Synoptic Problem.<a
href="#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>41</sup></span></span></span></a> John
Poirier, for example, writes, “Rather than lifting the study of the gospels
from the mire of subjective judgment, or allowing us to get a handle on a
unwieldy mass of data, statistical studies have too often amounted to coded
expressions of their user’s commitments.”<a href="#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42"
title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>42</sup></span></span></span></a>
In this regard, empirical studies of the synoptic texts contain the same
subjective criteria and exhibit the same types of interpretive issues that are
already present in existing methods of Gospel scholarship. Other scholars have
been similarly despondent of the ways in which data analysis in the synoptics
can aid our understanding of the texts. E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, for
example, do not see statistics as a definitive means of determining a possible
relationship between Matthew and Luke due to the minor agreements, they write:
“Statistics seem not quite to settle the question. One is not dealing with
random probability, but with editorial choice.”<a href="#_ftn43"
name="_ftnref43" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>43</sup></span></span></span></a> However,
Sanders and Davies rightly do not dismiss the usefulness of an empirical
analysis of the minor agreement outright; they see the high number of
agreements between Matthew and Luke, over one-thousand in their assessment, as
“too many to attribute to coincidence and editorial policy.”<a href="#_ftn44"
name="_ftnref44" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>44</sup></span></span></span></a> Thus, they
affirm that an empirical catalog of the synoptic texts can yield insight, but
is not meant to be a wholistic explanation of the texts’ literary relationship.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>The criticisms of quantitative data
in synoptic analysis is thus linked to previous studies which used Gospel data
primarily to focus on offering a maximal solution to the Synoptic Problem. A
wholistic skepticism of empirical methods in synoptic studies has thus arisen
because it is reacting against the wholistic view that data collected through
statistics and empirical analysis are able to explain entirely the nuanced
nature of literary composition.<a href="#_ftn45" name="_ftnref45" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>45</sup></span></span></span></a>
In other words, the quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis have
excluded one another. There is thus a need to demonstrate how a quantitative
approach to examining the Synoptic Gospels can aid the qualitive methods of
traditional Biblical exegesis. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> The remainder of this paper covers three topics that
seek to illustrate the contribution quantitative analyses can make towards
synoptic exegesis. First, I examine the use of a particular form of empirical
analysis, viz., contingency tables as used by Abakuks, as a possible and
accessible means for exegetes to make source critical judgments about a
pericope. Alongside contingency tables, I summarize how the quantitative
features of the texts can be visualized and catalogued through a digital medium,
which draws attention to important features of the text for the purposes of
interpretation. Lastly, I proceed to interpret the pericope of the Healing of
the Paralytic by using a contingency table generated from the digital
visualization/catalogue of the pericope as a guide to my exegesis. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal id="contingency"> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal > </p>
</div>
<div class="col-2 d-none d-md-block">
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#introduction" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
<i class="fas fa-chevron-up"></i></a>
</div>
<div class="col-md btn-block">
<a href="Christensen_GospelData_MAPSSThesis.htm#contingency" class="btn btn-lg btn-outline-dark btn-block" type="button">
<i class="fas fa-chevron-down"></i></a>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-2 d-none d-md-block">
</div>
<div class="col">
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u>An Empirical Analysis Approach: Contingency Tables</u></b><a
href="#_ftn46" name="_ftnref46" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>46</sup></span></span></span></a></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>In his study of the Synoptic
Gospels, Abakuks makes use of contingency tables to look for possible
associations between Matthew and Luke.<a href="#_ftn47" name="_ftnref47"
title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>47</sup></span></span></span></a>
I have chosen to adopt this method of analysis in this paper and wish to state
clearly here what my intentions are for doing so. First, a contingency table is
by no means the only or best method of analysis as regards the Synoptic Gospels,
but it is perhaps the simplest method that can be used by Biblical exegetes who
likely do not have expertise in more advanced statistical modeling. The
simplicity of the contingency table allows me to show how empirical analysis
can aid exegesis in a way that most Biblical scholars can understand without
too much additional effort.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>Second, a contingency table is not
meant to make a definitive statement about the literary relationship of one
gospel author with another. In fact, a contingency table used in the setting of
synoptic scholarship is meant to avoid the pitfall of making the statistics
determinative of the texts’ relationship. Because the synoptics texts are not
random samples, the data put into a contingency table from the texts cannot
determine statistical significance.<a href="#_ftn48" name="_ftnref48" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>48</sup></span></span></span></a>
This is to say that a contingency table can point an exegete in the direction
of a possible literary connection between two texts, but it must be left to the
exegete to make an argument for why such a relationship is warranted. Such an
approach thus allows both the quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis
to work side by side. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>Third, a contingency table is meant
to be flexible in that it can be used to test various literary relationships so
long as the data is arranged accordingly. In this paper, for example, I arrange
the data to look for possible associations between Matthew and Luke. Thus, my
approach is working from the basis of Markan priority. There is, of course, no
complete agreement on the matter of Markan priority, but I find the evidence in
favor of Mark being the earlier source from which Matthew and Luke gathered
much of their material to be the most convincing.<a href="#_ftn49"
name="_ftnref49" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>49</sup></span></span></span></a> However, one
does not have to accept Markan priority to see the value of a contingency
table, it could easily be used to test for connections between other gospels
texts and other source hypotheses. Additionally, in this paper I have chosen to
focus on word agreements between the texts and not strings of agreement, i.e.
where the texts agree in how words are arranged syntactically. I do this
because looking at the morphology of words in synoptic pericopes gives a larger
data set than strings of words. However, one could still use a contingency
table to examine relationships between strings of words based on the same principles
as word counts.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>With these principles in mind, what
follows is a brief explanation of how a contingency table works in this
approach and how one is able to complete the table for a given pericope.</p>
<div align="center">
<p class=MsoCaption style='page-break-after:avoid'><b><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;color:windowtext;font-style:normal'>Table </span></b><b><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;font-style:normal'>1</span></b><b><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;font-style:normal'>: </span></b><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext;font-style:normal'>Contingency for
Synoptic Analysis</span></p>
<table class=MsoTableGrid border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none'>
<tr>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'> </p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'> </p>
</td>
<td width=249 colspan=2 style='width:187.0pt;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'>Gospel
Y</p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'> </p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'> </p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'>0
(omit)</p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'>1
(include)</p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'>Total</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=125 rowspan=2 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'>Gospel
X</p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'>0
(omit)</p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'> </p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'><span
style='color:black'>Unique Z</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'><span
style='color:black'>(expected Z)</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'> </p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'>B</p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'>(expected
B)</p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'> </p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'><span
style='color:black'>Z + B</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'>1
(include)</p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'><span
style='color:black'>A</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'><span
style='color:black'>(expected A)</span></p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'>T</p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'>(expected
T)</p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'><span
style='color:black'>A + T</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'> </p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'>Total</p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'><span
style='color:black'>Z + A</span></p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'><span
style='color:black'>B + T</span></p>
</td>
<td width=125 style='width:93.5pt;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:normal'><span
style='color:black'>Total Words Gospel Z</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>The table is arranged to test whether Gospels X and Y have a
possible association with one another based on their redaction of Gospel Z. The
center cell is filled in with the observed data from each gospel. The count of
words unique to Gospel Z is placed in the top left corner because both Gospel X
and Gospel Y omit these words from their texts. The count of words included in
Gospel X and Gospel Z but omitted from Gospel Y is placed in the bottom left
corner, labeled A. The count of words included in Gospel Y and Gospel Z but
omitted from Gospel X is placed in the top right corner, labeled B. The count
of words which appear in all three gospels is placed in the bottom right
corner, labeled T. The sums of the observed data are placed in the Total row
and column of the table. Finally, the total word count of Gospel Z is placed in
the outside bottom right corner; this total will be the same as the sum of the
Total row or Total column. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> Once the observed data has been placed in the
table, the expected value of word counts can be calculated and placed in the
parentheses of the table. To calculate the expected frequency, you multiply the
sums of the totals rows for a given contingency, i.e. for words that are
omitted or included, and divide that product by the total number of words in
Gospel Z.<a href="#_ftn50" name="_ftnref50" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>50</sup></span></span></span></a>
For example, the expected frequency of words found in all three gospels (T) is
calculated:</p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><img
width=218 height=56 src="images/image001.png"></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>To see whether there is a possible association between
Gospel X and Gospel Y you compare the diagonals of the table. The first
diagonal compares the upper left corner of the middle cell with the lower right
corner of the middle cell: Unique Z with T. The off diagonal compares the lower
left corner of the middle cell with the upper right corner of the middle cell:
A with B. If the observed frequencies of the first diagonal are larger than the
expected frequencies <i>and</i> the observed frequencies of the off diagonal
are smaller than the expected frequencies, then there is a positive association
between Gospels X and Y. To put the matter in source critical language, a
positive association means that Gospels X and Y likely knew one another in
their composition.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal> Here I give a brief summary of three contingency
tables outlining a variety of synoptic pericopae. My intention here is not to
make an exhaustive survey of the Synoptic Gospels, but to demonstrate the
various features and questions a contingency table can uncover for studying the
texts. Each table contains my own counts for verbal agreements among the texts.
Inevitably, these counts will vary depending on how one defines an agreement.
This, however, is quite useful when examining the texts as it allows scholars to
make comparisons of the texts based on different levels of stringency. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>The Beelzebul Controversy (Mt 12:22–30; Mk 3:22–27; Lk
11:14–23)</i><a href="#_ftn51" name="_ftnref51" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>51</sup></span></span></span></a></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> The Beelzebul Controversy appears in all three
synoptic gospels, as well as the document Q. The telling of this episode
differs drastically among all three synoptics. However, there are three main
features of the pericope that all three gospel writers maintain. The first is
an accusation brought against Jesus that he casts out demons by the ruler of
demons, Beelzebul (<span lang=EL>ε</span>̓<span lang=EL>ν</span><span lang=EL> </span><span
lang=EL>Βεελζεβου</span>̀<span lang=EL>λ</span><span lang=EL> </span><span
lang=EL>τω</span>͂ͅ <span lang=EL>α</span>̓́<span lang=EL>ρχοντι</span><span
lang=EL> </span><span lang=EL>τω</span>͂<span lang=EL>ν</span><span lang=EL> </span><span
lang=EL>δαιμονι</span>́<span lang=EL>ων</span><span lang=EL> </span><span
lang=EL>ε</span>̓<span lang=EL>κβα</span>́<span lang=EL>λλει</span><span
lang=EL> </span><span lang=EL>τα</span>̀ <span lang=EL>δαιμο</span>́<span
lang=EL>νια</span><span lang=EL> </span>[Lk 11:15; cf. Mt 12:24;
Mk 3:22]).<a href="#_ftn52" name="_ftnref52" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>52</sup></span></span></span></a>
The second is Jesus’ response, which has to do with the ability of a kingdom
divided against itself to stand (Mt 12:25–26; Mk 3:24–26;
Lk 11:17–18). The third is another statement by Jesus on the ability to plunder
a strong person’s house (Mt 12:29; Mk 3:27; Lk 11:21–22). Yet, even these three features are not consistently represented across the texts
as there is a great deal of variation in how each author presents them, both
syntactically and thematically. For instance, the longest string of material
from Mark that appears in all three gospels is only eight words long (<span
lang=EL>ε</span>̓<span lang=EL>ν</span><span lang=EL> </span><span lang=EL>τω</span>͂ͅ
<span lang=EL>α</span>̓́<span lang=EL>ρχοντι</span><span lang=EL> </span><span
lang=EL>τω</span>͂<span lang=EL>ν</span><span lang=EL> </span><span lang=EL>δαιμονι</span>́<span
lang=EL>ων</span><span lang=EL> </span><span lang=EL>ε</span>̓<span lang=EL>κβα</span>́<span
lang=EL>λλει</span><span lang=EL> </span><span lang=EL>τα</span>̀ <span
lang=EL>δαιμο</span>́<span lang=EL>νια</span> [Mk 3:22]).<a href="#_ftn53"
name="_ftnref53" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;
font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>53</sup></span></span></span></a> Even then,
the authors arrange this string in different ways so that the longest unbroken
chain of material from the three gospels authors is only three words long (<span
lang=EL>ε</span>̓<span lang=EL>κβα</span>́<span lang=EL>λλει</span><span
lang=EL> </span><span lang=EL>τα</span>̀ <span lang=EL>δαιμο</span>́<span
lang=EL>νια</span> [Mk 3:22]).<a href="#_ftn54" name="_ftnref54" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>54</sup></span></span></span></a></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>The observed frequencies of
agreement and non-agreement between the synoptic gospels in this pericope,
along with the expected frequencies in parentheses, are given in Table 2 in the
appendix. The diagonals of the observed data are larger than the expected,
while the off diagonals are smaller than the expected, suggesting a positive
association between Matthew and Luke. Because the features of the texts differ
from one another syntactically so often it is difficult to pinpoint an area of
common Matthean and Lukan redaction of Mark in places where all three Synoptic
Gospels contain similar material.<a href="#_ftn55" name="_ftnref55" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>55</sup></span></span></span></a>
In places where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark, however, the contingency
table exhibits a need for further interpretation. For example, Matthew and Luke
have a large section in which Jesus discusses the presence of the Kingdom of
God vis-à-vis his casting out demons.<a href="#_ftn56" name="_ftnref56" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>56</sup></span></span></span></a>
Given the current set up of the contingency table, such an instance may
indicate Matthean and Lukan dependence; but the contingency table may also be
readapted to test for another possible literary association, namely an
association between Matthew, Luke, and Q. The Beelzebul Controversy thus
illustrates how a contingency table can serve as a helpful guide to
interpretation because of the variation across all three synoptic texts, and as
flexible tool that can test multiple possible literary relationships. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>The Rich Young Man (Mt 19: 16–30; Mk 10:17–31; Lk
18:18–30)</i><a href="#_ftn57" name="_ftnref57" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Calibri",serif'><sup>57</sup></span></span></span></a></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> “The Rich Young Man/Ruler” appears in all three
synoptic accounts. This section of the synoptic texts contains two main
features. First is a brief dialogue between Jesus and a certain rich young man
(Mt 19:16–21; Mk 10:17–21; Lk 18:18–22). This dialogue involves the young man
asking Jesus what he must do to have eternal life. Jesus responds by saying
that he should follow the commandments. The young man responds that he has kept
the commandments to which Jesus replies that he should then sell his possession
and give to the poor. The young man goes away saddened because he had many
possessions (Mt 19:22; Mk 10:22; Lk 18:23). This dialogue is followed by the
second feature of this section, a saying from Jesus concerning the nature of
the kingdom of God/heaven and its eschatological rewards. The saying about the
kingdom of God contains two parallel features: first a statement on how it is
difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:23;
Mk 10:23; Lk 18:24), second a comparative hyperbole on how it is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the
kingdom of God (Mt 19:24; Mk 10:25; Lk 18:25). This is followed by an exchange
on who is able to be saved, what it possible for God, and an interjection by
Peter that those following Jesus have left everything (Mt 19:25–27;
Mk 10:26–28; Lk 18:26–28). Finally, the section closes with a promise that
those who have left their house and relatives to follow Jesus will receive back
these things and more in eternal life (Mt 19:29; Mk 10:29–30;
Lk 18:29).</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>The observed frequencies of
agreement and non-agreement between the synoptic gospels in this pericope,
along with the expected frequencies in parentheses, are given in Table 3 of the
appendix. The diagonals for the observed data are greater than the expected,
and the off diagonals are less than the expected frequencies. This indicates a
possible positive association between Matthew and Luke and should thus guide
our interpretation of the texts. However, because this pericope may be divided
into two small subsections, I also present contingencies tables for these
smaller sections. Jesus’ interaction with the rich young man displays a positive
association between Matthew and Luke, as indicated by the larger observed
diagonals, and the smaller observed off diagonals (see Table 4). The
contingency for Jesus’ saying about the riches and rewards of discipleship also
display a positive association between Matthew and Luke (see Table 5). On the
whole, then, we should look for places in these pericopes where Matthew and
Luke may be aware of one another. This pericope demonstrates another flexible
feature of contingency tables, viz., they can be used to look at expanded or
condensed versions of the texts and thereby give important information for even
small features of the gospel stories, not just wholistic overviews of entire
gospel relationships.</p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i>The Sick Healed at Evening (Mt 8:16–17; Mk 1:32–34; Lk